presentation_rollback

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses a critical behavioral trait: the rollback is non-destructive because it creates a new commit rather than overwriting history. This directly informs the agent about side effects and safety. It does not disclose permissions or response formats, but the key behavioral insight is clearly stated.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, tightly-worded sentence that states the action, resource, method, and safety property. There is no redundant information or filler. It earns its place by communicating the essential aspects efficiently.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple two-parameter rollback tool, the description covers the core purpose and behavioral nuance well. It lacks an explicit mention of return values, but the non-destructive rollback concept is fully captured. Given the absence of annotations and output schema, it's reasonably complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema already provides descriptions for both parameters: 'ID del deck' and 'SHA de commit al que volver', giving 100% coverage. The tool description adds no extra parameter-level information, so there's no value beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 applies since the schema is informative.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses the specific verb 'Vuelve' (returns) targeting 'una presentación' and clearly defines the action as rolling back to a previous version, which is distinct from siblings like presentation_update or presentation_append. It also clarifies the mechanism (creating a new commit) without ambiguity. This makes the tool's purpose fully unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides clear context on when to use this tool: to revert a presentation to an earlier version in a non-destructive way. While it doesn't explicitly name alternatives like presentation_update or presentation_list_versions, the rollback intent is unmistakable. The 'rollback no destructivo' note implicitly discourages using destructive methods, giving sufficient guidance for selection.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.